From 27f931dac93057bbae691f66a49b11ff2f483bee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Morton Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:16:55 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] s1d13xxxfb linkage fix s1d13xxxfb_remove() is referenced from s1d13xxxfb_probe(), which is marked __devinit(). So s1d13xxxfb_remove() cannot be marked __devexit. Does this all make sense? Clearly the __devexit section will still be in core when the __devinit code is run, if the driver was loaded as a module. But I suppose that if the driver is statically linked, the __devexit section might be dropped early in boot. Still, we wouldn't drop __devexit prior to initcall completion, at which point the __devinit code has all been run anyway. verdict: this code was legal and made sense. Is this a generic problem, or an arm-specific problem? UPD include/linux/compile.h CC init/version.o LD init/built-in.o LD .tmp_vmlinux1 `.exit.text' referenced in section `.init.text' of drivers/built-in.o: defined in discarded section `.exit.text' of drivers/built-in.o Cc: Russell King Cc: Rusty Russell Cc: Greg KH Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- drivers/video/s1d13xxxfb.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/video/s1d13xxxfb.c b/drivers/video/s1d13xxxfb.c index b637c389e4..789de13f46 100644 --- a/drivers/video/s1d13xxxfb.c +++ b/drivers/video/s1d13xxxfb.c @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ s1d13xxxfb_fetch_hw_state(struct fb_info *info) } -static int __devexit +static int s1d13xxxfb_remove(struct device *dev) { struct fb_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev); -- 2.39.5